Face to face – total is 39 people responded. 24 registered to attend.
Encourage anyone who is planning to attend, today is the last day EOB.Please
register regrets if not attending.

Someone make sure Tom Carrol’s name is entered? He’s on vacation and can’t
register through the system. (Daniel will send email to hosts and Chris to
let them know.) Send to Johan Paulsen and copy the others, email address
on logistics page.

Strong encouragement to register.

Not sure if wireless/internet access will be available for F2F. Worked
out agenda for joint meeting, intros, status and direction from each WG
chair, about 15-20 minutes, first hour, then about an hour to do a presentation
on use cases, scenarios, application frameworks etc. Someone on use case
team to do that. Possibly with examples so people can recognize distinctions.
Show how link use cases to scenarios, perhaps – 30 minutes, then Q&A
for another hour. Then depending on the requirements feedback from Mike
and Daniel, session where we have requirements with some bearing on description
WG.Morning of Wed the 12th.Can continue in the afternoon as appropriate.
No complete schedule yet, some flexibility in the afternoon to allow break
out sessions etc.

Editor meeting this week – get SSH keys sent off to Hugo so we can create
accounts for you. Better to deal with CVS directly to help multiple editors.

Deadline for changes is today.

USTF update Dave – began to get organized, this week will turn into specific
action items and process to move ahead.

Item 6: Balloting for 5&6 concluded last night. Better turnout than
last time, thanks from the chair. Chris sent summary out last night, asks
for approval to and remove draft status. No objections. Aforementioned items
are hereby approved, and will remove draft status.

Editors: Remove draft designation associated with Item 6.

Next batch, seemed to be close to agreement. One or two D votes, indicating
further discussion might be needed.

Discussion around architectures for scalability – Mike’s wording more
accurate – a scalable architecture document doesn’t make sense. Discussion
on architecture promoting implementations that were scalable.

Action item to editors to adopt revised wording.

AC000.2.1 – very close – reduce complexity item – feedback was I don’t
know what it’s saying, suggested edits. Action for editors to rearrange
the text. Approved with that proviso – draft status will be removed.

3.1 – deferred

3.2 – separate design time from runtime aspects. Requirement for WS Desc
WG?Roger did not understand both sides of the item equally. Second statement
is out of scope? Design time is out of scope, isn’t it?

Doug – can someone provide a better justification for this being one
of our goals rather than something like a rechartered description WG.Chris
– table this and work on it a bit more. Too many “live withs”.

Dave wants to explain it – look at WSDL right now, people design things
to be layered or separated out. But WSDL doesn’t give you schemas that you
can validate as to whether it has only the abstract or concrete descriptions.

Chris – maybe this is more of a requirement for the WS Description group?Ok,
leave this as a draft.

Two Ds, Roger is one. Change “shall” to “may?” But my concern is to give
consideration to existing standards (Kurt) in specifications.

May improves it for Roger, Mark can live with it? Phrasing once again
the problem.

Resolution: editors remove 12.6.

B – take as a block – mostly section 5, Chris proposes to approve them,
and leave to editors to rephrase as statements.

One D on 5.2 – all subgoals are phrased as questions, should all be rephrased
as imperatives.

Resolution: Editors to Rephrase all requirements as imperatives, in particular
5.1 through 5.12. Approved with that proviso. Remove draft status and rephrase
as statements, all block B.

Block C

Suggestion to remove. Resolution 008.3 and 13.1 (?) to be removed by editors.

Next block – weighted toward things the group didn’t like.

2.1.2.1, 2.1.3,

Daniel Austin has to leave the call at 1:35 PDT.

Chris proposes that if someone wants these back in, they can propose a
suggestion for changing them.

Doug – would like to keep 2.3.1 – did propose some new wording.Doug to
spark the discussion and seek resolution toward conclusion on keeping the
item.

2.2.2.1 - ?

Don’t remove 5.7 yet, roll 5.5 through 5.8 into one thing, make a proposal
etc. Action on Srinivas for next week. Doesn’t make sense to remove all of
them.

2.3.1 removed

3.6 removed

5.12 – removed

Item 7:

Revised prposal for AC 20. Hugo, David, Eric P. and Chris discussed AC
20 and AC009, and came up with proposals to address the comments from last
week. For AC20 the text is in the agenda. Is there any discussion? Would
go in as draf and replace everything that’s currently there.

Like to talk about requirements this spec is putting on WSAWG – because
we haven’t defined any specs, we are not affected yet, but as we define
specs, we have to bear in mind the conformance requirements for I18N. Maybe
we need another requirement for keeping I18N in mind, or to conform to all
requirements in the charmod spec.?

Maybe we need to include IRIs, i.e. internationalized URIs…

Feedback due to charmod WG today (two hours ago). We can send it anyway.

David Booth – are URIs a subset of IRIs? Joe: Are IRIs Unicode based URIs?

Yin-Leng – URIs are subsets of IRIs, so every URI is an IRI.

Implications of IRI are broad.

TAG has asked for a one week extension on feedback.

Action: submit feedback. If anyone has further comments, another 6-7
hours remain.

End – no time for last item. Feedback for Mike, Ws Desc write up ,review
and work witih Mike on email list to go over any issues they might have
with it.

Wrap up our discussion on the list and then once consensus, send via
email to Desc groui before F2F, then address concerns at F2F. Deal with it
during joint meeting.

Action Items:

ACTION: Chris to incorporate Mark's feedback into May 18 minutes [1]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T19-47-11
ACTION: DanielAustin to email JohanPaulson (copy Hugo, David, Chris) to
tell him that Tom Jordan will be attending. [2]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T19-53-00
ACTION: Editors to remove the Draft status of agenda items #6. [3]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-03-29
ACTION: Editor to adopt revised language proposed by Mike for AG0006: "the
web services architecture must promote [4]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-11-38
ACTION: Editors to remove the Draft status on D-AC0002.1.1 [5]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-14-27
ACTION: DaveH to kick off discussion of D-AR003.2 on the email list. [6]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-24-49
ACTION: Editors to remove the Draft status and clean up the wording of D-AR012.5
(fix the word "levels") [7]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-27-46
ACTION: Editors to remove D-AR012.6 as unnecessary. [8]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-33-02
ACTION: Editors to rephrase all requirements as statements. [9]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-35-42
ACTION: Editors to remove Draft status of D-AC005.1 through D-AC005.4 (subject
to rephrasing as statements). [10]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-36-31
ACTION: Editors to remove D-AC008.3 and D-AR013.1 as unnecessary. [11]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-38-36
ACTION: Doug to spark discussion of new wording for D-AC002.3.1: DONE [12]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-54-24
ACTION: Editors to remove D-AC002.1.2.1 as unnecessary. [13]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-42-40
ACTION: Srinivas to propose new wording to combine 005.5 through 005.8 on
the mailing list. [15]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-45-22
ACTION: Editors to remove 002.3.1, 003.6 and 005.12. [16]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-46-10
ACTION: Frank to craft proposed language for AC020 items. [17]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-49-45
ACTION: Editors to replace AC020 text to that in the agenda. [18]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-ws-arch-irc#T20-50-05